Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

II I f \ I
{ , I Case 3gOO-cv;OO437-AHN Document 57 Filed 05/QQQQQQ C qéfg I
4__e ll. i3_; I
T", UO fC V-· 967 I
IV II? I! QJ I
I 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
I 2 . FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT I
3 SUMMARY ORDER C A__ I
_' ° I"*·’ I
wa Z; EL I
I 4 THIS SUM ARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER:
I 5 AND MA! NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS·OR.ANY;QTHER_ I
I 6 COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANYLQTHER I
‘ 7 COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATEDICASE,QOR INUI I
I 8 ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATAQ I I I
I 9 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appead? fg} the I
I l0 Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United _SUates
. 11 Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on theI45Iday of
I l2 [ FMT}, two thousand five. `I
I 13 Passswr; .,_,,_1es’C0URrD,,
QB FILED ##,0
14 HON . WILFRED FEINBERG, ` Q.
15 HON. ROBERT D. SACK, APR $$2005 M
16 HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, ig cgk
17 Circuit Judges. ECONQQIHGUI
; 18 —·—--—-——--—--————--—--~-—-~--—--- - ~---—-—
19 PAUL R. LOWE and NADINE CARTWRIGHT-
20 LOWE, P/P/A PAUL LOWE, JR.,
I 21 Plaintiffs—Appellants,
22 - v ~— wa. O4—2l9l
23 CITY OF SHELTON, SHELTON BOARD OF .
24 EDUCATION, SHELTON HIGH SCHOOL,
25 DONALD RAMIA, BETH SMITH, DEBORAH
26 KELLER,
27 Defendants—Appellees.
I 28 -————----——— - --—-----. - »*..... - .....,_ ____
I gg Appearing for Appellant: Ikechukwu Umeugo, Umeugo &
Associates, P.C., West Haven, CT.
I 31 Appearing for Appellee: Karen Baldwin Kravetz, Susman,
I 32 Duffy & Segaloff, P.C. (Thomas E.
I 3 Katon, Jesse A. Langer, of cousel),
I 34 I New Haven, CT.
.|||......i....'.. “N{·¢% @@5 __ I
I -ISSUED AS MANDATE:
I
r- H an :·*· ·· ,.,..-_.`_ 1,
I·sss·sssss»ssss
ii;i—QYZ3Ziiivii&;i3SSFTSMSSAA aies»AA?aLL_ ~ -.-. aLiii1;;;;;‘__mw_ __

”`_"“_`““—‘————*—·—~—————————~——L-
- .. Case 3:00-cv-00437-AHN Document 57 Filed 05/16/2005 Page 2 of 3 I
I _ I
I ` I
I 1 Appeal from the United States District Court for the I
2 District of Connecticut (Alan H. Nevas, Judge). I
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
4 DECREED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby
I ‘5 is, affirmed.
6 Plaintiffs-appellants Paul Lowe and Nadine Cartwright-Lowe
7 appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the
8 defendants-appellees. P1aintiffs—appellants claim that the
9 district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants-
10 appellees because, plaintiffs-appellants assert, there were
11 genuine issues of material fact on all claims and the judge
12 improperly made findings of fact in ruling on defendants-
13 appellees' motion.
14 This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary -
15 judgment de novo,_and draws all inferences in favor of the non-
16 moving party. Property Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. Chicago Title Ins.
17 Co., Inc., 173 F.3d 84, 86 (2d Cir. 1999). A grant of summary
· 18 _ judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers
19 to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
20 affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
21 material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment -
22 as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “On appeal, we may
23 affirm a district court’s grant of summary judgment on any ground
24 upon which the district court could have rested its decision.”
25 Santos v. Murdock, 243 F.3d 681, 683 (2d Cir. 2001).
26 We conclude that plaintiffs-appellants' contentions are
27 meritless. Plaintiffs~appellants did not produce evidence that
28 would support a rational inference that any of the defendants-
29 appellees acted with a discriminatory intent, or that they acted
30 based on the content or viewpoint of the speech in question.
31 Plaintiffs-appellants further failed to demonstrate that Paul
32 Lowe, Jr., had a property interest in creating an official jazz
33 club at Shelton High School. See Board of Regents of State
34 Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972). The district court
35 correctly found that the plaintiffs-appellants had failed to
36 raise a genuine issue of material fact as to any of their federal
37 statutory or constitutional claims.
38 Summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiffs-
39 appellants' pendent state law claim, intentional infliction of
40 emotional distress, because plaintiffs-appellants did not raise a
41 genuine issue of material fact as to whether Paul Lowe, Jr.,
42 suffered harm. ` _
I 2 I

_ Case 3:00-cv-‘OO437—AHN Document 57 Filed 05/16/2005 I Page 3 of 3
1 _ Summary judgment was appropriate on the conspiracy claim Q
2 because p1aintiffs—appe1lants did not allege the claim with
3 specificity. See Leon v. Murphy, 988 F.2d 303, 311 (2d Cir.
4 1993). Moreover, because plaintiffs-appellants failed to produce —
5 any evidence to support their claim that the defendants—appel1ees
6 intended to discriminate against Paul Lowe, Jr. or deny him
7 freedom of speech on a prohibited ground, plaintiffs—appellants
8 also failed to produced evidence to support an inference that
9 they agreed to do so.
10 We have reviewed plaintiffs—appellants‘ other arguments on
11 appeal and find them to be without merit. _
12 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District
13 Court is hereby AFFIRMED. I ‘
14 y FOR THE COURT:
15 ROSEANN B. MACKECHNIE, Clerk
16 @44 T?/{(05
17 B : D te.
I I
A TRUE COPY
B. -. Kar:. , 2
0 J . ¢· ,
PUTY CLERK
1
N